They could have still included Ramis in a cameo.

You know, considering.

Stars for Rafiki saying what clearly needed to be said.

Et tu, Shitty Shark Movie guy?

I want to say that this is the dumbest non controversy since... but I can't think of a dumber non controversy.

OH NO, THEY'RE RUINING YOUR CHILDHOOD.. AGAIN!

You're right, how dare they not make your fanfic into a movie.

>> I want to say that this is the dumbest non controversy since... but I can't think of a dumber non controversy.


Aren't you one of those people who likes to complain about superhero movies? Haven't you voiced loud opinions about this very movie, at some length, here already?

I might be wrong, I honestly don't remember.

Because I haven't seen it! NOBODY'S SEEN IT!

And I don't remember complaining about superhero movies. What I remember is complaining about exactly this. Trailers being released on the internet months in advance, and youtubers desperate for something to say poisoning the waters.

JHM, please tell me you're not doing the "How do you know it sucks if you haven't seen it?!" defense. Please.

Please.

I'm asking this as a personal favor.

Right, but this IS a subject you care about. Movies and controversies about movies. Just because you're trying to get all meta, that doesn't mean you're above any of this - and if you want to cyberbully the nerdosphere because they feel passionately about things, then for the sake of consistency, you really should include yourself.

And of course no-one's seen it. Who'd want to watch it after that god-awful trailer?

I'm sorry, but whats TRPG?

>>>Right, but this IS a subject you care about. Movies and controversies about movies. Just because you're trying to get all meta, that doesn't mean you're above any of this - and if you want to cyberbully the nerdosphere because they feel passionately about things, then for the sake of consistency, you really should include yourself.

Now, don't just stand there grasping your heads in pain... Let's have a round of applause for EvilHomer!


>>>JHM, please tell me you're not doing the "How do you know it sucks if you haven't seen it?!" defense. Please.

That seems pretty obvious, but i'm not talking about having an opinion. I'm talking about a guy who reviews movies on the internet publicly trashing something no one has seen. I like this guy, and I think he's basically taking a shit on his own credibility.

That was a pretty good non-answer. You should run for office.

Motherfucking John Ass Holmes Motherfucker is so fucking edgy he has motherfucker in his poe handle, and he is so fucking defensive whenever anyone pokes him the slightest. Keep poking. Poke all day every day. Poke John Ass Holmes Motherfucker till he motherfucking bleeds, motherfucker.

>>>Motherfucking John Ass Holmes Motherfucker is so fucking edgy he has motherfucker in his poe handle, and he is so fucking defensive whenever anyone pokes him the slightest. Keep poking. Poke all day every day. Poke John Ass Holmes Motherfucker till he motherfucking bleeds, motherfucker.

So you didn't like the Ghostbusters trailer?

>>That was a pretty good non-answer. You should run for office.

I suppose you're right. The only appropriate answer to

>>JHM, please tell me you're not doing the "How do you know it sucks if you haven't seen it?!" defense. Please.

would be:

I'm not doing the "How do you know it sucks if you haven't seen it?!" defense. You're welcome.

Incidentally, are we sure there aren't any cameos from Ramis (or Murry or Ackroyd or Mr Moranis or Weaver?) I don't think we are.

>> Just because you're trying to get all meta, that doesn't mean you're above any of this

The idea that reviewers shouldn't trash movies they haven't seen is the opposite of "meta" It's quaint. Unfortunately, it's old fashioned.

Who's been trashing a movie they never saw? All the "trashing" I've heard so far has been directed either against the trailer itself (which was pretty lackluster) or against the Hollywood film system as a whole, which let's admit, is downright awful.

Besides, even if these hypothetical, non-specified reviewers *were* trashing a movie they never saw, what would be wrong with that? If audiences voice their opinions, then the filmmakers will know what audiences want to see. Their shitty trailer, and the perfectly-justified online backlash against their shitty trailer, might have given the filmmakers the information and motivation they needed to do some final edits and make the movie not-suck!

It seems to me, John, that you just want a world in which sycophants suck up to the people on top and never speak truth to power. I think this stake of yours in the Great Ghostbusters War of 2016 is not rooted in rationality, but merely an extension of your own self-doubts, and inability to assert your needs in the face of domineering authority figures.

Thanks. Fully appreciated.

>> All the "trashing" I've heard so far has been directed either against the trailer itself (which was pretty lackluster)

He's not saying that he refuses to see the trailer; he's saying that he reuses to see the movie.

Right. Because of the trailer.

Rolfe's not trashing the movie; he's not even seeing the movie. He's trashing the trailer and he's trashing the current Hollywood film system.

Would you call "this thing" a bull-load of donkey-fuck?

Both are pretty intolerable, but I'd rather we have the spastic disagreements about pop culture than dogma collisions. I mean, I'd rather two sperg lords argue it out angrily over Ghostbusters than start a Crusade.

I just grow weary of artifice.

hate it also.

explain?

I'd rather people genuinely believe in whatever pretense they have for making other people miserable other than just randomly making other people miserable because they really like Ducktales. Life is short and miserable.

That's a good point, cog. I, too, am very much into sincerity, and I think if you're going to do something (including making other people miserable), then you should only be doing that something if you feel passionately about it.

However, you seem to be assuming that people *don't* genuinely believe in Ducktales, and I don't see that being the case at all! In fact, if you're willing to go through all the effort of making someone miserable over Ducktales, I think it's pretty much a given that you genuinely believe in the franchise.

Furthermore, if you are on the receiving end of someone else's misery, and you are both willing and able to feel miserable over their shitty opinions re: Ducktales, then it follows that you believe in Ducktales just as strongly as the person making you miserable does.

You've drawn Ducktale penises before, so I know you're at least somewhat committed to the whole Ducktales thing, and can sympathize with what I'm getting at.

I like both Carl Barks AND God, but I'd probably lean toward God if I had to be pressed.

Also, dancing around the issue, but fuck Rolfe. I was going to try to justify it with like some sociological/philosophical bullshit, you called me out on it, mea culpa, fuck James Rolfe.

Awww, but Rolfe's got such a colorful and creative vocabulary! You don't find it amusing when he calls a game or a movie a caca-doodoo shitballfuck?

Life is like a hurricane.

Is that because you are also like this guy, and you make your living talking about things?

I make my living not talking about things. Watch.












That'll be fifty dollars.

5 for Xeno, and for Albuquerque Halsey not editorializing in the Desc:. Video person says nothing for 2 minutes. That's as far as I got.

Don't flip your wigs, poetv. I'm not defending the movie.

Waaaah Go Buttsters

Was it when the hot Ghostbuster gave her gun a blowjob?

Yeah that gun is so lucky

It was just a CGI ghost flying right at the viewer. Am I the only one who saw that 3D trailer? I saw it with Superman V Batman.

I think you're the only one who saw Superman vs Batman.

In fact, you're probably the only one here who still goes to movie theatres at all.

In fact, I may be the only one who ever goes outside.

Why wouldn't we go outside? We've all got laptops and smartphones; these days, we don't need to be tethered to our PCs _all_ the time.

Why, just the other day, I took my tablet down to the beach and proofread some MLP fanfiction until the battery ran out. It's amazing the things we can do, things that were never even dreamt of twenty years ago!

Well, this seems played out....

As a matter of fact, I'm going outside right now. You can check my Facebook; I'll take some pictures on my smartphone and even make some posts about it.

Also will be making popcorn and waiting to see how the internet responds to the cast AND Hillary Clinton being on Ellen's show next week.

Hollywood does like five or six crappy reboots per year and the nerdbabies don't make a peep about it, but for some reason THIS crappy reboot is the one that they've decided is going to destroy filmmaking (and childhoods) forever.

BUT WHY THIS MOVIE WHAT SETS IT APART I DUNNO IT'S A MYSTERY.

Precisely, god forbid anyone point that out to them though!

He's so dumb.

So how was your trip to the future? How many sex robots did you bring back?

You can't possibly think that anyone is going to believe that's what you're honestly upset about.

Mr. Nocturno, I have under good authority that the only way anyone could have a negative opinion about this upcoming Ghostbusters movie is that they're a bunch of sexist HitlerPigs. And something something, nerd tears, etc.

>> the only way anyone could have a negative opinion about this upcoming Ghostbusters movie is that they're a bunch of sexist

This is the standard straw-man argument. Of course, it's entirely possible for you to have a negative opinion, and not be sexist, just like it's like it's possible for you to hate Obama and not be racist. No one is saying otherwise.

But it's pretty clear that sexism, or more precisely a relentless anti-feminism, is a big factor in the pre-backlash. Enough of them are saying so.

At worst, John, BHWW's argument is a straw-man argument about a straw-man argument. Perhaps BHWW could have worded his response more carefully - "the main reason people have a negative opinion about this upcoming Ghostbusters movie is that they're a bunch of sexist HitlerPigs" - which would have been less funny, but also a perfectly accurate summation of your own position. Still, you know what he meant, and you agree with what he meant; you just repeated the argument yourself!

Still, you know what he meant, and you agree with what he meant; you just repeated the argument yourself!

Well, he was being sarcastic and i wasn't so, no, we do not agree. And:

>>>"the main reason people have a negative opinion about this upcoming Ghostbusters movie is that they're a bunch of sexist HitlerPigs"

Isn't what he said, and it isn't the standard strawman argument appearing over and over on the internet. You've changed the meaning.

What he said was

>>I have under good authority that the only way anyone could have a negative opinion about this upcoming Ghostbusters movie is that they're a bunch of sexist HitlerPigs.

And the words
>>THE ONLY WAY

are way too specific to dismiss like that.

On the other hand, it's not that big a deal. The strawman elements here could be intended as hyperbole. I don't remember who we're talking about, and I'm not going to look, because it doesn't matter. It's just that this same strawman argument keeps coming up over and over in connection with this.

I never actually said that I don't care about this movie, but now I can see how you thought it was what i meant.

>> Well, he was being sarcastic and i wasn't so, no, we do not agree.

He was sarcastically presenting an argument that you are sincere about, as a way of belittling your position. He doesn't "agree" with your position in the sense that he doesn't find your arguments convincing, but you both agree on what your position is.

Look, you know that (almost) anytime someone uses an absolute statement, like "the ONLY way", they are engaging in hyperbole in order to drive home a rhetorical point. You just admitted this, too. It's not hard to understand - in a sociological context, absolute statements are NEVER true. The only meaning *I* changed was to replace BHWW's ridiculous straw-man absolute statement with the non-strawman, equally-ridiculous, very-nearly-absolute statement which you do in fact endorse. And what's wrong with that?

If you're going to split hairs over sophmore semantics, then there. I fixed the statement for you, that's all. Now you guys agree.

I really feel like I've said everything I have to say about this, and I'm tempted to repeat everything I've already said, this time in ALLCAPS.

You can do that if you like, but it won't change anything; you guys will still agree with each other.

put franchise in my eyehole pleese

Also, is it really a franchise if only one of the movies didn't suck?

Because objectionable people are whining about it? We're still doing that?

Because I want to see it before anyone who has actually seen it has an opinion.

And because i think it's going to be good. Maybe not good enough to live up to everyone's experience of seeing the original when you were five, but a fun time with the cast of Bridesmaids, and with 3D ghosts flying at my face. I think I have as much justification for my belief as anyone else.

Why do you even *want* to have an opinion about it, John? Why not just, not see it, move on? This is the same thing I was driving at above: you really care about this movie. You really care about what people think about this movie, and why they think the way they do. Ghostbusters criticism is a deeply important issue for you.

Nothing wrong with that, of course; I'm just asking that you maintain a little self-awareness when critiquing your fellow nerds.

I think the Internet should have standards, at least when it trashes people and things.

https://youtu.be/C6yBgL73q1g?t=2m0s

Change begins at home, Mr H.

Please don't tell me what you mean by that.

What I mean by that is change begins at home. If you want the internet to have standards, then the best way to start is by upholding those standards yourself.

Be the change you want to see in the world, and lead by example.

Yeah, whatever,

What I care about, am unapologetically obsessed with, is the internet, and it's developing influence on the greater culture. For me, that's what Body was all about, what Generate was all about, what this is all about.

I've arguabley screwed up my life, I don't have that much time left, and whatever tiny role I can have in the revolution is my best shot at some small anonymous legacy..

Yeah, whatever,

What I care about, am unapologetically obsessed with, is the internet, and it's developing influence on the greater culture. For me, that's what Body was all about, what Generate was all about, what this is all about.

I've arguabley screwed up my life, I don't have that much time left, and whatever tiny role I can have in the revolution is my best shot at some small anonymous legacy..

:(

I think you're being too harsh on yourself, John. You've earned the love of a beautiful woman; that's a start, isn't it?

You've got plenty of years left. The road is hard, but don't give up.

Fucking autocorrect

What Boxxy was all about, what GAmergate was all about

And anyways, even IF you only had a shot at making small differences now (which I do not accept!), the fact remains that the best way to make those differences is for you to be the change, and lead by example.

For example, let us consider Boomer the Dog. Boomie is probably the best person I know on the internet, and that is because he embodies everything that a good netizen should be. He is kind and generous, humble and polite; very zen. I have never seen Boomer get mad at a nerd for being a nerd, or complain about people on the wrong side of a perceived political disagreement - yes, he has opinions, he has hobbies, but he is Change, and that makes him a powerful force for good.

I mean in retrospect yeah it seems pretty strange.

I wish I could legitimately argue that it's more than just him pandering for maximum views, but it seems doubtful.

he's always acted like this. it was just his favorite movie as a kid or something.